I just want the best for my kids

Despite their liberal pretensions, many white middle-class parents - especially those in London - shun their local school. The underlying snobbery and racism are shocking, says the comedian Arabella Weir, who wouldn't dream of denying her children the privilege of being educated in their socially mixed state school

Sending your child off to school for the first time in their life is terrifying. You simply cannot imagine how this tiny little precious creature, for whom you have cared since birth, will begin to cope in an unfamiliar environment surrounded by lots of other kids, some of whom might not be as gifted, genius and sweet as yours.

Assuming you have any choice at all, picking their first school is also an alarmingly revealing moment for anyone who considers themselves to be a good, responsible citizen. It is a time when you find yourself assaulted by all sorts of terrors, nerves and unanswerable questions, most of which are so unedifying you cannot believe you are thinking them. Suddenly you forget about everyone else; it is all about your baby and only your baby.

When it was our turn to decide, my husband and I were in the happy financial position of being able to consider private schools. We did not contemplate that option for long. Neither of us was educated privately and most of the least socially and emotionally capable people I know went to posh schools. For us, then, it was a choice between the two local state primaries equidistant from our house. One is regarded as the Shangri-la of primaries, principally because it has an extraordinarily low number of disadvantaged kids despite being opposite a massive council estate. The other is much more representative of the area's demographic. We chose the latter because we liked the school and because it felt like the right thing to do.

Our daughter and son have now been there for six and five years respectively and it is through our contact and involvement with the school community and, sadly, other locals finding reasons not to pick our school, that I have witnessed class division, unrealistic aspirations and covert racism the like of which I have never come across before in my life.

When my parents moved to London in the early 1960s, they were advised by their Oxbridge-educated peers against buying their Camden house because "people like us" didn't buy houses near council estates. That sentiment is laughable now, for many reasons, the main being the property prices in inner London (their house is now worth more than 200 times what they paid for it), but the underlying attitudes are still very much the same. For all their social consciences, eco credentials and liberal leanings, very many middle-class white people, especially in London, do not want their kids going to school with those from working-class, lower-income and immigrant families - the kids who live on the estates surrounding their houses.

These days - ever since Tony Blair chose a faith school for his children miles away from their home - it's every man for himself. And we all know who wins when it's every man for himself ... and it sure ain't the disadvantaged. (Gordon Brown's son John, interestingly, is going to their local community school where almost half the pupils have free school meals and 24 languages are spoken.)

Our two children, aged 10 and nine, are very happily thriving, both socially and intellectually, at Ashmount primary in north London. The school has a wide, socially mixed intake - 37% of its kids have English as a second language and 33% are eligible for free school meals, ie poor. The school's catchment area includes three large council estates nestled between numerous streets filled with privately owned houses, the smallest of which would set you back anything upwards of £650,000.

Four years ago, following an unlucky combination of events, including the then headteacher's departure, some disruptive building works and a fairly poor Ofsted report, the middle-class parents began to leave like rats from a sinking ship. At the very moment the school community was in greatest need of applied, dedicated parents and the enormous benefit their presence would contribute to halting the school's further decline, they left. All of their kids, without exception, seemed to be happy, settled and doing well. The panic was entirely the parents'. It was not a measured reaction to sliding standards, because they weren't - nothing had changed except the advent of some administrative difficulties. I won't deny I had a few wobbles at the time but, as my husband kept reminding me, the kids were doing well, had lots of friends and were happy. A crisis could happen anywhere.

Now, thanks to the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff, led by an exemplary head and consistent input from the PTA (which is made up of representatives from the whole school community, not just a few middle-class do-gooders), our school is doing really well. The school's intake has also begun, inch by inch, to be slightly more representative of the whole local demographic, but we are still a way off from being the school of choice for the white middle classes.

There is so much that is positive, wonderful even, about state schools. At a state school your kids will learn to live alongside and appreciate other kids from many diverse and different cultures. They will learn that privilege is not a birthright, that it has to be earned, along with understanding that they need to earn their place in society and earn the right to succeed. They will learn street sense, who to be wary of, who to avoid, how to keep their heads down and how and when to stand up for themselves. They will learn to make room for people of different abilities.

Friends of mine who educate their children privately have said they want their kids to be taught alongside children just like them - but why? Life's not going to be like that, so why fool them?

I know a lot of people fear the rougher types who might be at a state school, but surely it is better to know who they are and how to deal with them than for that kind of child to appear as a completely different species to yours. There is an inherent tolerance and kindness in the state school teenagers I know. I have to say that I have seen little evidence of that in the private-school teenagers of my acquaintance - but where would you learn it, if everyone in your class has parents with money and opportunities?

My 10-year-old daughter now walks home from school alone with a classmate. They walk through several council estates without even thinking about it - why wouldn't they? Most of the kids from those estates are at school with them. They are comfortable in their area. My children know that they have much more than a lot of their peers, but, crucially, they do not see that as making them better than them. Compare that with the boys at a nearby private school who are told to take their jackets and ties off before going home so that they are not "targeted" by local roughs. Hearing that chilled me to the bone. Unless educating your child privately offers a copper-bottomed guarantee that they would have all the best - best jobs, best marriages, best lives, best happiness, best choices, best everything in life, forever - then why shut them off from real life with all its ups and downs until they are 18, only to then tip them out into that same world to take pot luck alongside everyone else? If only it were possible to ensure that your precious little angel was at the front of the queue for everything, always. No amount of private education can organise that.

I do not pretend to know everybody's reasons for not sending their children to state schools but I would bet it has something to do with wanting the "best" for their kids. There is a widely held belief that when it comes to our children, anything goes. But we all want the best for our kids and only a tiny percentage can afford to opt for the "best", so surely it is up to all of us to participate in driving up standards and expectations at our local schools.

I do wonder what people think would happen to their children if they went to school alongside a less advantaged child. Research shows that children from supportive, aspirational homes are doing as well, if not slightly better, in state schools than those at private schools. There must be some truth in that because large numbers of parents now switch their kids from private to state for sixth form because they think they will have a better chance of getting into the top universities from there. That's an irony, isn't it?

Quite aside from formal education, surely today, as never before, education should be as much about social integration, awareness of, ease with and respect for different cultures.

I appreciate why some parents are drawn to private education: the classes are smaller, there are more subjects taught, there is (though not always) more of a culture of learning. But that is only for 7% of the country's children and benefits no one except them. Whereas all of society benefits from standards being raised at state schools - better-educated children, accustomed to routine and daily exposure to others from all walks of life surely mean a safer, better environment for everyone.

Only when state schools are funded at the same level as private schools can we really start to make comparisons. State schools will never be able to deliver a service on the same level until everyone has an interest in ensuring they do so and makes sure that their demands are heard and their expectations met. There will always be disadvantaged children and, statistically, these are the most likely to stay in poverty and resort to crime. But if we don't start educating all children together, when there is still a chance, where are we expecting those kids to learn to aspire and achieve? Are we just giving up on them?

If my experiences are anything to go by, then rejection of the state system stems from fear - fear of the unknown and, more specifically, fear of contamination, of our kids being altered by the "different" ways of people not like us. Unappealing as it may be to acknowledge, the wish to keep our children in the social equivalent of an armed, gated community is very strong.

I will be honest - it is more cosy knowing that all your fellow parents have access to, and funds for, three foreign holidays a year, organic food, and Mini Boden clothes. But, really, what has cosy got to do with the price of eggs? Sending your child to a state school does not mean you have to give up your lifestyle. It means accepting that it takes all sorts to make up a fair society. More importantly, it means you are taking part, as a responsible citizen, in helping raise the bar for everyone while making room for others with fewer opportunities - nothing more, nothing less. I look at it this way: it's not about what you're denying your children by sending them to state school but what you're providing them - exposure to the richest, most diverse, challenging, exciting environment where they will have to think on their feet and any and all of their achievements will be down to their efforts, not a system designed exclusively to wrench results from any child irrespective of their ability. As the late John Smith said, "I wouldn't dream of denying my children the privilege of a state education."

Of course, there are advantages to private schools, but they are the kind you can acquire whenever you want - it's only information. At state school, in tandem with an education, you will also acquire the huge advantages of social ease and a sense of community which, if you haven't learned at school, you never, ever will. They just cannot be "taught". Whatever you do, don't claim to have rejected state schools because you have been "let down" - you have got to be in it to win it and, whatever your political allegiance, everyone knows, deep down, that sending your kids to the local state school is the right thing to do. If those of us with advantages and privileges do not make this choice, who does?

My kid will be bullied ... and other myths about state schools

Fact: If you're only educating the children of those who can afford private schools, you're bound to get better exam results than the schools that take poor people's children as well. In "value-added" league tables, which measure how much pupils improve, private schools generally do no better than state schools, and often do worse.

Myth: Private schools must respond to what parents want, otherwise they'd go out of business. State schools can afford to ignore parents.

Fact: It's the other way round. In state schools (unless they are academies), parents and local people have a direct say in the running of the school through the governing body. Private schools are not directly accountable to parents, and often answer to a far-away corporate headquarters that controls them far more tightly than any state school. If state schools fail to deliver what parents want, parents vote by staying away, which leads to trouble for the school.

Myth: The teaching is better at private schools.

Fact: There is good and bad teaching in both sectors. But in state schools there are several early warning signs - Ofsted reports, parents moving their children, the local authority stepping in. Private schools are self-regulating, inspected by their own Independent Schools Inspectorate, and children come from further away, so their market is less sensitive and reacts more slowly.

Myth: High-achieving and motivated children need to be educated only with similar children if they are to achieve their best.

Fact: Research shows that schools need a core of well-motivated children - about 20% - to be effective. Where there are a lot of private or grammar schools, the other schools - teaching only the children too poor to go to private schools and not able enough to get into selective schools - will struggle.

Myth: Middle-class children should go to private schools so as not to be bullied by the local toughs.

Fact: There's no evidence that you get less bullying at private schools. What you need to stop bullying is a good anti-bullying policy, which many state schools have.

Myth: State schools are no good at getting children into top universities.

Fact: It is true that Oxford and Cambridge have a disproportionately high number of undergraduates from private schools. But they are under intense pressure to do something about it, and many comprehensives now offer the Oxbridge coaching that was once only given at private schools.Francis Beckett